Jump to content
The World News Media

Creation-Evolution-Creative Days-Age of the Earth-Humanoid Fossils-Great Flood


Recommended Posts

  • Member
18 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

One of the most gracious men on Twitter is Richard Dawkins. His kindness to even those with whom he disagrees knows no bounds. I am told that angels sign up for his podcast on etiquette lessons..

There! Happy?

ANOTHER GLORIOUS VICTORY FOR ALAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're imitating your idol Donald J. Trumpolini.

Yeah, I'm satisfied.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Views 8k
  • Replies 625
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This helped me to see the source of Alan’s enmity towards me. It is pure envy.

I'm making a catch-all place for the discussions on these topics that were currently under different topics/subjects. As I move old posts into this new topic, the oldest ones will appear to identify the starter/owner of this topic, even though that person didn't create this topic.

For the life of me, I cannot take this fellow seriously. With a level of abuse (granted, I provoked it here, but it is just so much fun. And this is not really an example of it) that is off the charts, it is virtually the only thing about him worth mentioning. I can’t imagine why the Librarian (that old hen) puts up with him, when she has dropped the abuse hammer on others. Poor CC suffers it every time you turn around—not necessarily unjustly, but certainly no worse than this fellow. Even

Posted Images

  • Member

True Tom Harley said:

Quote

Shermer’s coverage of the four-battle war between creationists and evolutionists was worth the price of admission alone, and since the price was free—his Great Courses lecture series was a library checkout—it was doubly worth it. I don’t want my writing to be lame . . .

Too late.

Quote

Lead prosecuting attorney William Jennings Bryan was not the narrow minded “buffoon” that Alan’s grandfather made him out to be.

Thanks for the compliment! I have the utmost admiration for Mencken and his writing.

Quote

Shermer points out that he was in most respects liberal-minded. However, in the aftermath of WWI, he became alarmed at the human cost of teaching evolution. Aghast at Germany’s embrace of the “pseudoscience” of social Darwinism, channeled into eugenics, he decided that the best way to stamp out that aftereffect was to stamp out the original effect.

Bryan's problem was the same as Christian apologists often have today: the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the fake 'science' of Social Darwinism. That was originated by one Herbert Spencer, who applied Darwin's notion of natural selection far beyond anything Darwin wrote about. Today it's considered pseudoscience.

Others jumped on Spencer's bandwagon and became popularizers of his ideas, despite the fact that it was a philosophical, not a scientific position. Creationists of all stripes have long beat their drums about this pseudoscience. A Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism) puts it well:

<< Creationists have frequently maintained that social Darwinism—leading to policies designed to reward the most competitive—is a logical consequence of "Darwinism" (the theory of natural selection in biology). Biologists and historians have stated that this is a fallacy of appeal to nature, since the theory of natural selection is merely intended as a description of a biological phenomenon and should not be taken to imply that this phenomenon is good or that it ought to be used as a moral guide in human society. While most scholars recognize some historical links between the popularisation of Darwin's theory and forms of social Darwinism, they also maintain that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution. >>

As a discredited logical fallacy, Social Darwinism has no more connection with the Theory Evolution than the carpet bombing of German and Japanese cities had with the Theory of Gravity.

Quote

 

His distrust of science can be seen in his statement released to reporters after the trial:

“Science is a magnificent force, but it is not a teacher of morals."

 

Bryan was a wise man in many ways. As an attempt to describe how nature actually is, science is not supposed to be a teacher of morals.

Since a great deal of criticism of Evolution is based on the fallacy that science ought to be a teacher of morals, all such criticism is fallacious and completely misses the point of science.

Quote

"It can perfect machinery, but it adds no moral restraints to protect society from the misuse of the machine. It can also build gigantic intellectual ships, but it constructs no moral rudders for the control of storm-tossed human vessel.”

Again Bryan was correct. Morality is the bailiwick of philosophy, and sometimes religion -- not mere descriptions of nature.

Quote

He next devotes a few lines to the horrific advances of war that science had enabled, then concludes with: “If civilization is to be saved from the wreckage threatened by intelligence not consecrated by love, it must be saved by the moral code of the meek and lowly Nazarene. His teachings, and His teachings alone, can solve the problems that vex the heart and perplex the world.” That statement will resonate with many today, not just Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Yes, it would. But remember that neither science, nor scientists for the most part, start wars: politicians start wars. And politicians use every available means to achieve their ends -- everything from stone-tipped spears to hydrogen bombs.

Quote

Michael Shermer strives mightily to separate the science of Darwin from the “pseudoscience” of social Darwinism. I am willing to let that separation stand in the scientific sense, but it certainly does not stand in the sense that matters—that of common sense and human motivation.

"Common sense"? In other words, you have no logical arguments. And you deliberately forget politics.

Quote

Newly minted atheists such as H. G. Wells acknowledged the corrosive effect of evolution.

A self-contradictory statement. See below.

Quote

In his Outline of History, he states: “A real de-moralization ensued...a real loss of faith after 1859 [publication of Darwin’s Origin of the Species]. Prevalent peoples at the close of the nineteenth century believed that they prevailed by virtue of the Struggle for Existence, in which the strong and cunning get the better of the weak and confiding....Man, they decided, is a social animal like the Indian hunting dog....It seemed right to them that the big dogs of the human pack should bully and subdue.”

First, Wells was a science fiction writer, not a historian. While he wrote a popularized two-volume history series, it was not particularly well received by historians. Second, the statement you quote is a mere description of what happened to become popular belief -- which is in no sense valid science. No more so than today's Trump-inspired popular belief that the recent American election was stolen from him is valid history.

Since Wells became an atheist and came to accept Evolution, his statements about "de-moralization" and "loss of faith" can hardly be called "corrosive" from his point of view. On the contrary, as an atheist he would have considered such things as a net positive.

Quote

It is just psychology Wells references. There is no scientific linkage, certainly no “proof.” But anyone who has seen 2001–a Space Odyssey instantly makes the connection. The starving hominid does not advance by loving his neighbor. He does not advance by displaying morality and decency. He responds by picking up a Darwin and beating his rival to death with it, and then all his buddies close in to make sure the kill is complete.

Even you admit that you have no valid, logical arguments. Only vague allusions to "common sense". Very much akin to the basis of almost all religious belief.

Quote

The only ones blind to this obvious connection are atheistic evolutionists, who wish to spotlight human advancement, not human regression.

More ridiculously illogical claims. And fallacious, since you assume your conclusion.

Quote

But my wife came across a young man in her ministry just today who opined that many of his generation were “returning to God and the Bible,” since “nothing else has worked out too well, has it?”

He was basically wrong: far more young people today want nothing to do with religion of any kind than ever before.

Quote

Only atheist evolutionists are blind to the societally corrosive effects of their beloved theory.

An excellent statement of your fallacious 'reasoning'.

Quote

Hence, my hilarious joke that 93% of such evolutionists play drums, but the only song they will perform is Also Sprach Zarathustra.

Yes, cheer yourself on!

The rest of your 'exposition' is the usual combination of "meh" and "not even wrong", so there's no point in my commenting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
On 1/5/2021 at 9:26 PM, AlanF said:

And by sticking my name in the tale -- which is pure ad hominem -- you again prove yourself to suffer from Dunning-Kruger.

Can we agree that this fellow featured at video’s beginning is not pulling with both oars in the water? Lemon juice doesn’t make him as invisible as he anticipated?

Nevertheless, university psychologists Dunning and Kruger seem to think this loopiness has broad applicability, as though anyone might commit such a faux pas. Reading of this idiot in the newspaper “led to Dunning and Kruger to examine this phenomenon more deeply.” This suggests to me that they too might not be entirely pulling with both oars.

There is a sneering quality to this video. Rather than view this fellow as a mental health candidate, these psychologists—or maybe it is just the video-maker—seem to expand his nuttiness to whomever might disagree with them over matters of science. Specifically, it is hurled at me because I do not lap up every bit of evolution they want me to lap up. I do lap up some of it. It wasn’t me who put dinosaurs on the Kentucky ark. But I don’t lap up the works.

In their experiment to “examine this phenomenon” more thoroughly, Dunning and Kruger take the lazy person’s way out and employ graduate students as their guinea pigs. Obviously, it is easier for college professors to do this—always there are graduate students lying about—but are graduate students representative of the overall population? In the matter of low-information people tending to overestimate their knowledge, are they not significantly different than the overall population? Probably the difference is not enough to make the experiment worthless, but it is enough to relegate its conclusions from book-status to pamphlet.

The cure for Dunning Kruger syndrome, as proposed in the video, if not D&K themselves? ‘Taking in more knowledge’ is the antidote. I doubt this goes anywhere near as far as taking in more humility, and graduate students are not known for this quality. Young people in general are not known for it—all the more so those who have entered the competitive heady world of graduate school. Rather than advanced learning being a cure for Dunning Kruger, it is more likely to simply transform an ignorant braggart into an educated one. Which is worse? It is hard to say. On the one hand, it is “I can handle a stupid person, and I can handle a belligerent person, but a stupid AND belligerent person...” That’s a pretty tough combination, my coworker said as we were batting the topic around. So yes, eliminating half the problem—that of being stupid—would seem to be an improvement. On the other hand, equipping braggarts with knowledge doesn’t necessarily change them into more tolerant people—as often, it simply makes them more insufferable. 

Better than the recommendation to take in more learning, which depending on one’s circumstances, may not be feasible, is the recommendation to take in more humility. The world of academia probably provides the least fertile ground for growing that counsel, whereas the world of spirituality is probably the most fertile. You won’t find Philippians 2:3 on the quadrangle—counsel “consider others superior to you.” Rather, it is usually just the opposite. Still, even in the most skewed comparison, everyone has at least one quality in which they are clearly superior. The trick is to find that quality and hone in on it like a laser beam.

The world of the head does not rule as it imagines it does. If not coupled with humility, then even when the heady person is right, he finds that people resent and will not cooperate with him simply as a reaction to how ill-mannered they are. It’s staggering how the high IQ can be coupled with an infantile EQ.

To underestimate the gravity of what you do not know is a human tendency that will afflict all to some degree. No one is immune to the Dunning - Kruger effect. The video acknowledges this, even if it does propose a faulty solution. But the humble person who truly “does not think more of himself than it is necessary to think” has a leg up on the one who consistently does think more of himself than it is necessary to think, even when his increased knowledge reveals to him that the subject is more massive still. That doesn’t necessarily humble him. As often, it puffs him up with self-importance at the thought of what he has been able to figure out.

    Hello guest!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
19 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

But the humble person who truly “does not think more of himself than it is necessary to think” has a leg up on the one who consistently does think more of himself than it is necessary to think, even when his increased knowledge reveals to him that the subject is more massive still. That doesn’t necessarily humble him. As often, it puffs him up with self-importance at the thought of what he has been able to figure out.

Please relate this to the Leaders of the Watchtower from it's begining.

I doubt you bothered to note my topic on the wonderful increase of languages that the Watchtower has achieved. The more Bibles in the more languages, the better. Fantast achievement.

Now, compare that with the false teachings of the Watchtower. The false predections. We don't need to mention years or specifics here because you and all others already know. 

But, you surely can see how it relates to your comment. Those Watchtower leaders thought so much of themselves that they presumed they had the right to run ahead of God and Christ, to predict Armageddon on so many occasions. And as you say  "even when his increased knowledge reveals to him that the subject is more massive still. That doesn’t necessarily humble him. As often, it puffs him up with self-importance at the thought of what he has been able to figure out."

We also know the things that you attibute to those W/t Leaders as 'having figured out'.  But how sad it is that those things have, puffs him up with self-importance at the thought of what he has been able to figure out."

So who are those "humble person who truly “does not think more of himself than it is necessary to think” " ?

Those, my friend, are the True Anointed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
46 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

So who are those "humble person who truly “does not think more of himself than it is necessary to think” " ?

You’re entire premise is wrong on so many things:

“American scholar of religion Holly Folk ... show[s] that, although there have been cases of sexual abuse by members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the number of perpetrators is not higher, and may actually be significantly lower, when compared to the prevalence of sexual abuse in other religions and in our modern societies in general. It is also not true, Folk said, that Jehovah’s Witnesses oppose reporting of cases of sexual abuse to secular authorities when it is mandated by the laws, nor that they sanction those who report. When governmental documents or media repeat unfounded allegations by anti-cultists, or single out Jehovah’s Witnesses falsely alleging that sexual abuse is more prevailing in their congregations than in other groups or in society in general, they are consciously or unconsciously supporting an agenda that attacks the Witnesses for reasons that have little to do with the protection of the victims of abuse.”

    Hello guest!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

...

Your hypocrisy is evident, TTH: Trumpolini has issued several insincere calls for non-violence, talking out of both sides of his mouth -- exactly what you did. You obviously support his incitement to insurrection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You’re entire premise is wrong on so many things:

“American scholar of religion Holly Folk ... show[s] that, although there have been cases of sexual abuse by members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the number of perpetrators is not higher, and may actually be significantly lower, when compared to the prevalence of sexual abuse in other religions and in our modern societies in general. It is also not true, Folk said, that Jehovah’s Witnesses oppose reporting of cases of sexual abuse to secular authorities when it is mandated by the laws, nor that they sanction those who report. When governmental documents or media repeat unfounded allegations by anti-cultists, or single out Jehovah’s Witnesses falsely alleging that sexual abuse is more prevailing in their congregations than in other groups or in society in general, they are consciously or unconsciously supporting an agenda that attacks the Witnesses for reasons that have little to do with the protection of the victims of abuse.”

    Hello guest!

 

Holly Folk has no idea what she's talking about.

The fact is that JW leadership has always put protection of "Jehovah's name" -- actually the JW organization's own name -- above all other considerations. That's why it was only in 2001 that they issued a specific instruction to elders not to prevent any molestation victim from reporting to the police -- until then it was understood that reporting was to be discouraged. Victims and their family members were actually disfellowshipped for reporting against elders' instructions.

Link to post
Share on other sites




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.